U.G. Krishnamurti

[Rhett]

.

Being a good thinker and a good moralist go hand-in-hand Rairun. Whilst most 'moralists' are mind-dead religion regurgitants, there's another breed of people quite unlike them.

I think UG is a cool dude.

All he seems to say is that there's no wrong way of living. Anyone can do whatever he or she wants -- sure, there will be mundane consequences (like going to jail if you happen to go against the law, for example), but that's all.

But then how will you do what you want, unless what you want to do is be in jail?

Do you have the gumption to acknowledge that you've been well educated and pampered in life, and that this has arisen only because most people aren't psychopathic?

Enlightenment, perfection, heaven, etc are all different ideas of how things should be, and the core of his life philosophy is that there are no "should"s outside our own personal valuing.

Who here do you find saying these glorious states are of inherently greater value?

Of course he's a con-man sometimes. I don't think he's interested in spreading the truth or anything else. He's just getting his own kick out life.

Do you like being conned Rairun?

I do find that he says truthful things sometimes, but you can't just take his word for it. He'll try to explain how he sees things, but the way he articulates himself is often sloppy. He's not too rigorous with the words he uses, so at one point he'll say that there's no natural state and at another he'll say there is. The only problem there is that he seems to mean different things by "natural state" in each case.

He's endeavouring to impart a teaching which you are yet to understand or appreciate in a significant enough manner, however sloppily he does so and however limited his understanding of it is. Or it could be that he's just putting on a front and doesn't want anyone to understand as he doesn't either and it doesn't suit his purposes.

Then there are times when he just spouts things out in a whim and doesn't make much sense. For instance:

"...it (self-consciousness) is not necessary for survival. It's a mistake (!?) of nature which will destroy everything."

I agree that he's sloppy but i see the point he is making. He's talking about the ego, the notion of an inherently existent self, which is very destructive of that which is good. It's not necessary for survival or desirable, and is in fact responsible for death and perhaps a lot more of it in the near future.

I could reply to him: "But damn, UG, I like being self-conscious. I'm not about to commit suicide because nature made the 'mistake' of creating me. If I end up destroying everything, I don't give a fuck." I could also point out how both of his statements are contradictory. Then he'd either agree with me or try to beat me with a stick because I outsmarted him.

I don't see that you've outsmarted him. You've merely not understood his point, or allowed yourself to genuinely consider it.

When his reasoning fails, he comes back to that main point of his: he can do whatever he wants, even lie. He really just wants his fun.

If he really says those things i say he can't just do what he wants, as he's addicted to fun. I call him a cripple.

.

[unknown]

When i say UG is a fool , he is not a fool.
When i say UG is not a fool, He is a fool.

Things are said within context. Until you know the context behind it , you will take things in wrong way.

You all humans are incomplete form.

[Rhett]

.

How do you get on in life Unknown? Does the bus driver understand you when you need to buy a ticket?

.

[hades]

.

How do you get on in life Unknown? Does the bus driver understand you when you need to buy a ticket?

.

The engine is running, but there is no bus driver in his case.

[Rairun]

.

Being a good thinker and a good moralist go hand-in-hand Rairun. Whilst most 'moralists' are mind-dead religion regurgitants, there's another breed of people quite unlike them.

No, they don't. You can be moralist while being a good thinker, but you have to recognize that you're basically conning people into changing their values.

Imagine that a guy likes salty food more than sweets, and that he always picks chocolate at the grocery store instead of bread. You can inform him that bread is salty so that he'll buy it instead. You're influencing his actions, but that's not moralism.

Now imagine that I like sweets more than salty food. I walk into the grocery store to get my chocolate bar, and you start telling me that I should buy bread instead. I say that I like chocolate better, but you say, "No, you're dellusional!" That's moralism. I understand perfectly what chocolate and bread taste like, and I perfer the former.

You can disguise moralism and say it's the truth, if it suits your purposes. I'm just saying that in reality it's not.

But then how will you do what you want, unless what you want to do is be in jail?

That's a purely pragmatic question, really. You have to weight the predicted results of each action, then decide which one you're going to choose according to your values. If you want to do something that will get you in jail, you'll have to ask yourserlf, "Do I value doing this one thing more than being free?" If your answer is yes, then go ahead and do it. If it's no, then deal with it.

Do you have the gumption to acknowledge that you've been well educated and pampered in life, and that this has arisen only because most people aren't psychopathic?

That's a difficult question to answer because I don't know how efficient secular institutions are when it comes to holding society together. Do we need guilt to make people work together without killing each other? Or is a good legal system enough?

Also, psychopathic people, such as myself, aren't necessarily a threat. Although my life style is not exactly traditional (it might even be frowned upon), I don't think it's too harmful to the workings of society in general. I don't feel like going around killing people or anything like that. I don't feel the need to con people for money.

That being said, I'd have no problems acknowledging that. I'm not claiming that we should make an effort to turn people into psychopaths.

Who here do you find saying these glorious states are of inherently greater value?

You find an innocent, gullible person, and he'll most likely be attracted to your "glorious" states, even if you say they aren't of inherently greater value.

Do you like being conned Rairun?

I'm not being conned by him, am I?

Well, maybe he conned me into thinking he's cool. The thing is that if he turned out not to be cool, I wouldn't be disappointed. I don't really care about him.

He's endeavouring to impart a teaching which you are yet to understand or appreciate in a significant enough manner, however sloppily he does so and however limited his understanding of it is. Or it could be that he's just putting on a front and doesn't want anyone to understand as he doesn't either and it doesn't suit his purposes.

(...)

I agree that he's sloppy but i see the point he is making. He's talking about the ego, the notion of an inherently existent self, which is very destructive of that which is good. It's not necessary for survival or desirable, and is in fact responsible for death and perhaps a lot more of it in the near future.

This is a big topic that I have no time to discuss in length now. We'd have to talk about everything from the start. For example, I don't even agree with you that we must believe in an inherently existent self to feel emotions. So you say that the apple doesn't inherently exist -- so what? "I" don't inherently exist -- so what? I want to feel like eating it, so I do. I don't pretend I'm some sort of permanent being that comes into existence uncaused. I'm fine with that. People preach enlightenment because they want people who don't inherently exist to attain enlightenment, which doesn't inherently exist either.

If he really says those things i say he can't just do what he wants, as he's addicted to fun. I call him a cripple..

Rhett, of course he can do what he wants, because what he wants is having fun. That's the way everyone works. By your definition, everyone is a cripple. There isn't some sort of magical entity that freely picks the things it wants out of nowhere. We are always caused to want things, and fun can be one of them.

[Rhett]

.

Rhett: Being a good thinker and a good moralist go hand-in-hand Rairun. Whilst most 'moralists' are mind-dead religion regurgitants, there's another breed of people quite unlike them.

Rairun: No, they don't. You can be moralist while being a good thinker, but you have to recognize that you're basically conning people into changing their values.

No, i'm not conning anybody. It has been my experience that the rare breed of people to which i refer are both good thinkers and good moralists, and never have i met or personally experienced either of these attributes in isolation. To not be moral is to be wanton, which is clearly not an enlightened state.

Imagine that a guy likes salty food more than sweets, and that he always picks chocolate at the grocery store instead of bread. You can inform him that bread is salty so that he'll buy it instead. You're influencing his actions, but that's not moralism.

Okay, but the motive to educate him could be moral.

Now imagine that I like sweets more than salty food. I walk into the grocery store to get my chocolate bar, and you start telling me that I should buy bread instead. I say that I like chocolate better, but you say, "No, you're dellusional!" That's moralism. I understand perfectly what chocolate and bread taste like, and I perfer the former.

That's not an accurate analogy. You've neglected to account for the emphasis you placed on "fun" and "selfishness", placing them above honesty and truthfulness, towards which you were derogatory.

You can disguise moralism and say it's the truth, if it suits your purposes. I'm just saying that in reality it's not.

It depends on whether one is referring to a conventional 'moralist', that holds onto various sayings and regurgitates them at whim in an absolutist manner, or whether one is referring to what i might call a moralist.

Rhett: But then how will you do what you want, unless what you want to do is be in jail?

Rairun: That's a purely pragmatic question, really. You have to weight the predicted results of each action, then decide which one you're going to choose according to your values. If you want to do something that will get you in jail, you'll have to ask yourserlf, "Do I value doing this one thing more than being free?" If your answer is yes, then go ahead and do it. If it's no, then deal with it.

I will now make a public statement urging everyone to completely purge all amoral self-oriented characters from your life. Shun them and leave them. They do you and us harm. If we all do this we will make a far better world. Pass this message on.

Rhett: Do you have the gumption to acknowledge that you've been well educated and pampered in life, and that this has arisen only because most people aren't psychopathic?

Rairun: That's a difficult question to answer because I don't know how efficient secular institutions are when it comes to holding society together.

Secular institutions remove us from a hand-and-mouth existence, giving us time to develop spiritually.

Do we need guilt to make people work together without killing each other? Or is a good legal system enough?

In this day-and-age, yes, most people still need guilt for civilisation to exist. We need more of it.

Legal systems will always be restricted by;
- their inability to completely foresee new forms of destructiveness, and
- their inability to completely counteract the deviousness of the clever, and
- their inability to enforce all contraventions of the law, and
- the depravity of the persons upholding the legal system, and
- etc . . .

Most people forget that all legal systems are founded on the belief in truth. They could not operate otherwise. Need i note that Postmodernism is completely anti legal systems?

Rairun: Also, psychopathic people, such as myself, aren't necessarily a threat. Although my life style is not exactly traditional (it might even be frowned upon), I don't think it's too harmful to the workings of society in general. I don't feel like going around killing people or anything like that. I don't feel the need to con people for money.

Yes, you are very normal and boring, and you're not seeing the harm you are already doing. For example, in this thread you've spoken favourably of the bad side of a well-known 'spiritual teacher'. It's ever so easy to keep people in the animal realms by appealing to their base nature, in the same way it's ever so easy for a terrorist to destroy.

That being said, I'd have no problems acknowledging that. I'm not claiming that we should make an effort to turn people into psychopaths.

Yet you are doing exactly that.

Rhett: Who here do you find saying these glorious states are of inherently greater value?

Rairun: You find an innocent, gullible person, and he'll most likely be attracted to your "glorious" states, even if you say they aren't of inherently greater value.

Do you find something wrong with that?

That being said i don't tend to spend time with overly gullible people.

Rhett: Do you like being conned Rairun?

Rairun: I'm not being conned by him, am I?
Well, maybe he conned me into thinking he's cool. The thing is that if he turned out not to be cool, I wouldn't be disappointed. I don't really care about him.

My intention was to highlight the experience of being conned, which is invariably unpleasant. Do you really wish this upon others?

As for U.G., yes, he has conned you into thinking he is free of cares and concerns and that his teachings can help others become this way. The populace has also conned you along these lines.

Rhett: I agree that he's sloppy but i see the point he is making. He's talking about the ego, the notion of an inherently existent self, which is very destructive of that which is good. It's not necessary for survival or desirable, and is in fact responsible for death and perhaps a lot more of it in the near future.

Rairun: . . . I don't even agree with you that we must believe in an inherently existent self to feel emotions. So you say that the apple doesn't inherently exist -- so what? "I" don't inherently exist -- so what? I want to feel like eating it, so I do.

Please explain to me what is it like to "feel like eating" an apple.

I don't pretend I'm some sort of permanent being that comes into existence uncaused. I'm fine with that.

Are you fine with permanence and the truth that nothing ever actually comes into existence?

Rhett: If he really says those things i say he can't just do what he wants, as he's addicted to fun. I call him a cripple..

Rairun: Rhett, of course he can do what he wants, because what he wants is having fun. That's the way everyone works. By your definition, everyone is a cripple. There isn't some sort of magical entity that freely picks the things it wants out of nowhere. We are always caused to want things, and fun can be one of them.

You're denying that most of people's lives isn't fun. In fact, people's lives aren't fun in proportion to how much they wish for it to be fun. That's an irony you're yet to see. 'Good' emotions are only good in comparison to bad emotions, like the experience of getting out of prison is 'good' compared to being in prison. However, one would be best off with neither experience. People cling to better rather than best because they fail to fathom best.

.

[N0X23]

Quinn wrote:

I just think that UG's methodology, although interesting on the surface, is rather limiting and ineffectual, and the evidence for this can be seen in the calibre of his followers, which is very low.

Ah, Yes....And what of the caliber of your followers, David ?
Scott and Kelly just to name two... ;)

[David Quinn]

I grant that it's difficult to repel low-quality types if one has a powerful voice. I'm not speaking about Scott or Kelly specifically here, just making a general observation. No matter how repulsive and inhuman your message is, you will always remain attractive to certain kinds of deluded misfits. It can't be helped. Even Weininger and Kierkegaard attract them.

All one can do is encourage people to shed all desire to be part of a personality cult and become independent students of truth. That's one of the reasons why I like to emphasize the writings of other truthful thinkers, such as Lao Tzu, Buddha, Diogenes, Hakuin, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and so on. It encourages people to be more detached and solitary-minded, to want to exercize their own brains and figure it all out for themselves.

The problem with UG is that he takes all this away from people. He not only rubbishes everyone else, including the great sages, but he also rubbishes the very process of thinking itself. The only thing he leaves behind is his own powerful voice for people to become mindlessly attached to. How can he attact the higher-quality types doing that? He is only going to attract the misfits.

As for Kelly and Scott, I don't believe we can really make any definitive judgments about them yet. They are still young and impressionable. They are works in progress. They haven't yet to learn to stand on their own two feet. They still need a helping hand every now and then. That's okay. We can't really hold their youth against them.


-

[Ras866]

How old are they?

[David Quinn]

Around 21 (Scott) and 28 (Kelly), I think.

-

[N0X23]

All one can do is encourage people to shed all desire to be part of a personality cult and become independent students of truth. That's one of the reasons why I like to emphasize the writings of other truthful thinkers, such as Lao Tzu, Buddha, Diogenes, Hakuin, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and so on. It encourages people to be more detached and solitary-minded, to want to exercize their own brains and figure it all out for themselves.

The problem with UG is that he takes all this away from people. He not only rubbishes everyone else, including the great sages, but he also rubbishes the very process of thinking itself. The only thing he leaves behind is his own powerful voice for people to become mindlessly attached to. How can he attact the higher-quality types doing that? He is only going to attract the misfits.

This is inaccurate. UG rubbishes his very own words, actions and status to ad extremum. He is constantly exposing the hypocrisy of the Guru/ Student lineage and necessity.
I don’t see his so-called “scam” as devious, I see it as cultural.
India, historically, has supported it’s Religious figures and Sages’s.

UG spent the majority his of his now depleted Trust Fund, in the pursuit of Enlightenment and then simply walked away from his very lofty and lucrative position, within the Theosophical Society.
The irony of your criticism is, you are accusing him of fostering this low caliber, personality cult, but this is the very thing he abandoned and denounced publicly years ago and continues to do so, to this day.

If he were guilty of what you are accusing him of, all he would have to have done was remain exactly where he was.

It is quite apparent that you are criticizing from a very limited and mistaken perspective.

As for Kelly and Scott, I don't believe we can really make any definitive judgments about them yet. They are still young and impressionable. They are works in progress. They haven't yet to learn to stand on their own two feet. They still need a helping hand every now and then. That's okay. We can't really hold their youth against them.

There are two classes, the Ordinary and the Holy, all other distinctions are quite redundant.
Attachments and Ignorance are repulsive regardless of the caliber of the person harboring these qualities.
Your defense being their chronological age seems rather impotent, especially considering their youthfulness. It is much easier to divert a trickling stream, then an engorged river.

[David Quinn]

Nox wrote:

UG rubbishes his very own words, actions and status to ad extremum. He is constantly exposing the hypocrisy of the Guru/ Student lineage and necessity.

And yet, everyday, he is surrounded by people who look at him adoringly and hang off his every word. That's the "scam". His rubbishing of his own words is fake - or at least, ineffectual.

Why doesn't he grab a handful of his own faeces and smear it all over his listener's faces? That would certainly send them packing.

Obviously, he doesn't want that to happen. He wants his listeners to stay.

I don’t see his so-called “scam” as devious, I see it as cultural.
India, historically, has supported it’s Religious figures and Sages’s.

UG spent the majority his of his now depleted Trust Fund, in the pursuit of Enlightenment and then simply walked away from his very lofty and lucrative position, within the Theosophical Society.
The irony of your criticism is, you are accusing him of fostering this low caliber, personality cult, but this is the very thing he abandoned and denounced publicly years ago and continues to do so, to this day.

He's hoodwinking you. He's clever enough to play this game of "pretending not to be a guru while receiving all the benefits of being a guru". It's not a hard thing to do when there are always dull-witted, gullible people about.

He knows that his jetsetting lifetsyle will continue to be funded by his followers, because he knows how to feed them and keep them interested. It's like feeding chooks.

If he were guilty of what you are accusing him of, all he would have to have done was remain exactly where he was.

Let me ask you this:

If he was truly serious in the rubbishing of his own words and attainments, and if you truly believed this to be the case, then why you are getting upset over my own rubbishing of him? What exactly are you defending?

-

[N0X23]

David wrote:

And yet, everyday, he is surrounded by people who look at him adoringly and hang off his every word.

How do you know this? Have you actually followed him around during his daily routine for an extended period of time, or even a short amount of time? Or have you made this conclusion from watching a select few videos? Or is this just pure speculation on your part?

That's the "scam". His rubbishing of his own words is fake - or at least, ineffectual.
Why doesn't he grab a handful of his own faeces and smear it all over his listener's faces? That would certainly send them packing.
Obviously, he doesn't want that to happen. He wants his listeners to stay.

Your conclusion of his motives are conveniently short sighted. If he were to commit that repulsive act, true, it would send some of them packing, some would stay and he would also attract a whole new caliber of follower.

I’m pretty sure that you’re childish idea would run counter to what he is actually trying to convey.... Just a hunch, though...

He knows that his jetsetting lifetsyle will continue to be funded by his followers, because he knows how to feed them and keep them interested. It's like feeding chooks.

Just like the Buddha and Jesus knew how to keep their dull-witted, gullible people about, right?
Con-men and beggars, they were.
No different.
Jesus had his Disciples and multitudes and the Buddha had his Sangha and begged for Alms every morning.
No man is wholly independent, we are all entirely dependent on one another. You know that whole pesky, Conditioned Reality, Totality thing....

Let me ask you this:

If he was truly serious in the rubbishing of his own words and attainments, and if you truly believed this to be the case, then why you are getting upset over my own rubbishing of him? What exactly are you defending?

Well let me clearly convey that I could give a shit. I am in no way upset, you can trash UG or any other that you like, all day long, your opinion has absolutely no bering on my emotional state.
That being said, I am not defending him or his actions.

Your stated opnion of his actions, contradicts what has been documented. Just as if you were to claim that Hitler was a Black Activist who fought for the Solidarity of the Middle East, I would challenge you’re mistaken assumptions, that doesn’t mean I’m defending Hitler, I am just simply correcting you.

The problem with UG is that he takes all this away from people. He not only rubbishes everyone else, including the great sages, but he also rubbishes the very process of thinking itself. The only thing he leaves behind is his own powerful voice for people to become mindlessly attached to. How can he attact the higher-quality types doing that? He is only going to attract the misfits.

Yes, if you want to strengthen the debilitated to the point that they are well enough to walk on their own, you must strip away their crutches and let them fall flat on their faces.
Tear down all ingrained superstitions, pre-conceived notions, beliefs and dogmas and give them nothing in return.

You and Kevin continually speak out against the negative impact that the femininization of society has on rational and independent thought, yet here you are condemning a man who refuses to coddle or carry the Ignorant masses. Your rebuke smacks of hypocrisy.

[bert]

most people,and those with much knowledge can not exactly tell you what "belief" is,or how to believe in what defies natural laws and existing belief.they are subject to bewilderment and distraction,directly they open their mouths full of argument;without power and unhappy unless spreading there own confusion,to gain cogency they must adopt dogma and mannerism that excludes possibility....By the illumination of their knowledge they detoriate in accomplishment.
Have we not watched them decay in ratio to their expoundings?
verily,man cannot believe by faith or gain,neither can he explain his knowledge unless born of a new law.We being everything,wherefore the necessity of imagining we are not?


I'm running tired,one post at the max is to be posted on genius forums.

[David Quinn]

Nox,

DQ: And yet, everyday, he is surrounded by people who look at him adoringly and hang off his every word.

N: How do you know this? Have you actually followed him around during his daily routine for an extended period of time, or even a short amount of time? Or have you made this conclusion from watching a select few videos? Or is this just pure speculation on your part?

There is plenty of biographical material on him. For example: http://www.well.com/user/jct/ugbio/ugbtitle.htm

Notice that everyone, despite his best efforts to denounce all spiritual realities and teachings, treats him as though he is a saint. He is definitely a very clever guru. Even Bhagwan Rajneesh, the cunning leader of the Orange people, would have been impressed.

DQ: That's the "scam". His rubbishing of his own words is fake - or at least, ineffectual.
Why doesn't he grab a handful of his own faeces and smear it all over his listener's faces? That would certainly send them packing.
Obviously, he doesn't want that to happen. He wants his listeners to stay.

N: Your conclusion of his motives are conveniently short sighted. If he were to commit that repulsive act, true, it would send some of them packing, some would stay and he would also attract a whole new caliber of follower.

Maybe. But at least it would help dispell the myth he is constantly feeding everyone on the sly - namely, that behind all the bluster he really is a saint or sage of some kind.

If that doesn't work, he could always try something else. He could masturbate in front of those who come to visit him, for example. He could fondle their wives and rape their children. He could poison their cups of tea. I'm sure if he put his mind to it he could stop the flow of visitors and put an end to the sham once and for all. His lifestyle could then begin to match his claim that he has nothing to teach.

I’m pretty sure that you’re childish idea would run counter to what he is actually trying to convey.... Just a hunch, though...

According to him, he is not trying to convey anything. He even reckons that communication is impossible on all levels. And yet there he sits, everyday, earnestly discussing matters with others ....

Again, my main gripe with him is that his claim that he has nothing to teach is dishonest. Why does he feel compelled to go through all these convoluted hoops of loudly denying what he is plainly doing? It's very strange. It's also very disrespectful of others. He must think people are idiots.

DQ: He knows that his jetsetting lifetsyle will continue to be funded by his followers, because he knows how to feed them and keep them interested. It's like feeding chooks.

N: Just like the Buddha and Jesus knew how to keep their dull-witted, gullible people about, right?
Con-men and beggars, they were.
No different.
Jesus had his Disciples and multitudes and the Buddha had his Sangha and begged for Alms every morning.

That's true. If the stories in the gospels and the sutras can be believed, both Jesus and the Buddha were guilty of manipulating their followers for personal gain. But at least they did it in a slightly more honest and less convoluted manner.

Imagine if the Buddha were to put on his robes, give teachings and accept alms each day, only to flatly deny that he was indeed a teacher, that he wore robes and that he fostered the guru/follower dynamic. Such a denial on his part would be outrageous. And yet UG manages to do this sort of thing each day without blinking an eye.

That's probably what bowls people over so much - the sheer outrageousness of his denying what is so obvious. It short-circuits the listeners' minds and sends them into deep confusion. They think, "How can a man entertain such rampant duplicity without going completely mad? Only a saint could do this!"

You and Kevin continually speak out against the negative impact that the femininization of society has on rational and independent thought, yet here you are condemning a man who refuses to coddle or carry the Ignorant masses. Your rebuke smacks of hypocrisy.

Well, his refusal to coddle the ignorant masses is weak and ineffectual, in my opinion. That is why I speak against him.

Notice, for example, that most of his websites dedicated to him are feminine and flowery in atmosphere. That, to my mind, is very telling. We can see the seeds of the future here. We can see how he will be increasingly portrayed after his death. It won't be long before he will be fully absorbed into the ever-expanding crowd of womanly saints and whatever wisdom he did have will be lost forever.

-